Concerned citizens have saved the city months of staff time, developing a replacement ordinance to address demolition applications.
The Historic City of Jefferson would like to see a stronger, more deliberate plan in place to respond to future demolition applications.
Attorney Paul Graham introduced the 33-page, working document to the city's Historic Preservation Commission Tuesday on behalf of his client.
The first draft of the proposed ordinance project was the result of Cole County's intentions to demolish the jail and sheriff's house attached to the courthouse, Graham said. The need for a more aggressive ordinance was reinforced during the Monday council meeting's discussion of abandoned buildings, he said.
"Our primary purpose is not to go after property owners, but to protect historic properties," Graham said.
For starters, the definition of "demolition" would include neglect as well as intentional razing, he said of the developing ordinance proposal. And he would like to see the penalties increased from $500 fine and 180 days in jail.
The changes to Chapter 8, Article 4, also would create a "class of protected properties," he said. Those would include designated city landmarks, properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places and sites 50 years old and older.
Graham foresees friction since the proposal suggests the city law would take precedent over county law, even regarding public spaces, he said.
The developing ordinance change would create a mechanism for demolition applications, which are rejected by the commission. Graham's plan involves the Board of Adjustment and public input. And the "burden of proof" would fall on the opposition to the demolition for why it is historic or should be denied.
"I want your ordinance to withstand an attack in court," Graham said.
He told the commission it needs to remove as much discretion as possible from its review process for that reason.
"This ordinance will be a problem for the city," Graham said. "If you intend to protect historic properties, you can't do that unless you're prepared to tell property owners "no.'
It's a question of courage."
Fifth Ward Councilman Larry Henry Jr. agreed the ordinance might stir up opposition in the city staff and council members.
"It's not going to be easy at all to get something like that through," Henry said. "But it's definitely worth discussing."
Commissioners and city legal staff will review the draft and then discuss it at a special meeting in January.